# Pitting double standards: Boy bullied, stripped by girls, video posted, no charges **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 4, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267 "2011-06-04T00:37:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/41 "2011-06-04T04:14:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The victim may not need to be in court but he is in middle-school. Everyone there will know what is up. Right, but with this story in the media, everyone at his school _already_ knows what is up. I don’t think a court case is likely to make things any worse for him than they already are. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/42 "2011-06-04T04:20:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am puzzled that they said the girls potentially faced misdemeanor battery charges. > > If three boys did this to a girl would they only be charged with a misdemeanor? I am guessing not but IANAL. If they were 11 and they removed clothes without touching, probably. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/43 "2011-06-04T04:22:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The victim may not need to be in court but he is in middle-school. Everyone there will know what is up. > > ETA: I should note the analogy between a woman and her rapist and this case has obvious flaws. Hopefully people understand the gist of it. Analogies are imperfect things. Elementary. He was in 5th grade. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/44 "2011-06-04T04:22:37Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Right, but with this story in the media, everyone at his school _already_ knows what is up. > > I don’t think a court case is likely to make things any worse for him than they already are. Yes and no. I am guessing (were I in his shoes) I’d want the whole thing to go away. We already have: 1. The incident 2. The video 3. Media attention which is growing (and I feel bad I added to it to some extent by posting here) If it goes to court it will continue. Remember the ages here. Kids will take sides regardless of right or wrong but based on popularity. Considering these girls stripped him I am guessing he was an “easy” target. He’ll lose the popularity contest and be seen as a “dick”. Kinda like a guy who rats on people and runs to mommy for protection. The kid is doomed. He has no good way out. He rolls over he’s fucked. He fights he’s fucked. What would you do if this was your kid? ---
**Author:** ![BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/45 "2011-06-04T04:33:41Z")
> [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > And in fifty years it will be listed that way in dictionaries and thesauruses. For now I am going to continue my policy of not liking assaults, murders, puppy-kicking, etc and raising an eyebrow at those who do. People use new social technologies in various ways to mean various things. Don’t be a pedant to imaginary rules. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/46 "2011-06-04T04:39:18Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Bullying is bullying. That boy will be dealing with this probably till he leaves for college in 7 years as the kid who got stripped by girls and had his humiliation posted for all to see. > > Fuck double standards. This isn’t bullying. This is sexual assault. This is gang rape. As far as the school is concerned, suggesting they can’t do anything because the rape occured off school grounds, how is it they can fire a teacher for appearing nude on a playboy photo shoot in some studio not on school grounds, which I seem to recall happening more than once. ( I may be wrong) ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/47 "2011-06-04T04:43:07Z")
> [@BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](#): > > People use new social technologies in various ways to mean various things. Don’t be a pedant to imaginary rules. They aren’t imaginary rules. They are my personal rules. I think people who say they like puppy-kicking are weird. You can befriend all the puppy-kicking-likers if you want. If anyone really wants to criticize me for this then feel free to start a new thread. It’s a weird thing to get pitted for but if you want to go ahead. I might not bother reading it though because I still have an episode of Doctor Who to catch up on. I suggest we try to get this thread back on topic. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/48 "2011-06-04T04:45:36Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > With due respect, the enforcement of criminal law is not “about” the victim or “about” the perpetrators; it’s about preventing criminal behaviour. > > Whether or not the mother wants to press charges (and her public statements are extremely confusing; while it’s said she doesn’t want to press charges, she has also publicly complained that nobody is doing anything) does not change the fact that the state has a vested interest in arresting and punishing criminals, because _they’re supposed to protect all of us._ If people are allowed to commit crimes in broad daylight and aren’t stopped from doing so, they and others will be more likely to commit other crimes, quite possibly even more serious crimes. > > If it was just about the victim and the perpetrators, well, heck, you could get rid of at least half of the criminal justice system and just turn matters like this over to civil courts. But it’s not; it’s about maintaining a civil society by meting out punishments that deter potential offenders and, when necessary, physically segregates dangerous offenders from society itself. > > What will happen in this case if the girls are not arrested is that the State of Florida will be, in effect, saying that teenagers stripping an 11-year-old naked in public and then putting on the video is okay, and nobody’s going to do anything to stop it. Wanna bet what’ll happen next? I apologize for any typos/rambling - posting from my iPhone here. Let me clarify my position further: 0- thank you for the criminal justice lecture (sincerely). It’s an area I happen to be extremely familiar with. And, while I’m not familiar with Florida law, typically the juvenile criminal system is less concerned with deterrence than it is with rehabilitation. With all due respect, the juvenile court system typically IS about the perpetrator and identifying the appropriate action to take to rehabilitate them into a productive member or society. 1- I am against the crime committed here (regardless of gender). 2- I understand and support the mother’s decision not to press charges. I do not think she wants to subject her already mortified son to a trial. 3- I do not think the State requires a victim’s cooperation to prosecute a case particularly a felony, BUT: 4- Sometimes I think a victim’s rights trump the state’s interest in prosecution. Happens all the time and should happen when it’s appropriate. 5- The corollary is true as well: sometimes the state’s interest in prosecution trumps a victim’s rights as well. 6- I’m happy, in this case, with deferring to the parent’s request not to prosecute and the district attorney’s choice to abide by that request. I don’t know everything they know. I don’t know what the girls’ criminal history/school performance/other factors is or are. I don’t know how vehemently the mother (or the son) objects to going forward with a trial. And I do believe these things are appropriate for the DA to consider when deciding whether or not to pursue criminal charges. 7- doesn’t mean I’m not horrified and bothered at what they did. I’m just not horrified and bothered at the decision not to address it in a criminal court. 8- I reject the slippery slope argument at the end of your post. There are other negative reasons (parental discipline, public shame, eg) not to engage in this type of behavior. I doubt very much we will see a linear progression of bad behavior simply because the state decided to leave this one to the parents after being requested to do so by the victim’s mother. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/49 "2011-06-04T05:24:57Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > As far as the school is concerned, suggesting they can’t do anything because the rape occured off school grounds, how is it they can fire a teacher for appearing nude on a playboy photo shoot in some studio not on school grounds, which I seem to recall happening more than once. ( I may be wrong) I think you are right but there is a distinction between students and teachers. Teachers are employees and have no fundamental right to their job. Students have a fundamental right to an education. That makes the comparison unequal. That said I think I have heard of cases of students getting busted for actions outside of school property. (Wasn’t there a Supreme Court case where a student posted a sign off school property and the school punished him? I forget and a quick Google search didn’t help.) ETA: Here it is (free speech case): > [@](#): > > Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) was a school speech case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, at a school-supervised event, that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.[1] > > Background.↓ In 2002, high school principal Deborah Morse suspended 18-year-old Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading “BONG HITS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school during the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay.[2] Frederick sued, claiming his constitutional rights to free speech were violated. His suit was dismissed by the federal district court, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Frederick’s speech rights were violated. > > Majority opinion.↓ Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment. To do so, he made three legal determinations: first, that “school speech” doctrine should apply because Frederick’s speech occurred “at a school event”; second, that the speech was “reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use”; and third, that a principal may legally restrict that speech—based on the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school’s “important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest” in deterring drug use by students. > > SOURCE: [Morse v. Frederick - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick) Not sure how relevant. School sponsored event but looks to me like he was off school grounds (albeit across the street). ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/50 "2011-06-04T05:25:22Z")
> [@Palooka](#): > > That kid is going to be fine. In a few years it’ll change from an embarrassing story to an erotic story. What the hell is wrong with you? Is this supposed to be a joke? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/51 "2011-06-04T05:37:03Z")
The youth of the girls plays into this. They’re only eleven. This was bullying, but calling it a “sexual assault” is a bit much. Plus, the double standard is not without validity. I support the double standard, I think it makes sense, that it exists for a reason, and that it’s silly to pretend it’s all exactly the same. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/52 "2011-06-04T05:40:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The youth of the girls plays into this. They’re only eleven. This was bullying, but calling it a “sexual assault” is a bit much. > > Plus, the double standard is not without validity. I support the double standard, I think it makes sense, that it exists for a reason, and that it’s silly to pretend it’s all exactly the same. I agree “sexual assault” goes too far. I think you need to expand on when and where you think a double standard is ok (I made a case for it upthread and distinguished it from this case). ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/53 "2011-06-04T05:46:04Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Whether or not the mother wants to press charges (and her public statements are extremely confusing; while it’s said she doesn’t want to press charges, she has also publicly complained that nobody is doing anything) does not change the fact that the state has a vested interest in arresting and punishing criminals, because _they’re supposed to protect all of us._ If people are allowed to commit crimes in broad daylight and aren’t stopped from doing so, they and others will be more likely to commit other crimes, quite possibly even more serious crimes. A question for the lawyers. We know that the State is not required to have the victim’s cooperation to bring charges, but does the fact that the victim is not cooperating (testifying) hurt the chances of a conviction? ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/54 "2011-06-04T05:51:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The youth of the girls plays into this. They’re only eleven. This was bullying, but calling it a “sexual assault” is a bit much. > > Plus, the double standard is not without validity. I support the double standard, I think it makes sense, that it exists for a reason, and that it’s silly to pretend it’s all exactly the same. The boy was 11, the girls were 8th graders. 13 or 14. ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/55 "2011-06-04T05:56:36Z")
It looks like the elementary school the victim attended was a Title I School, which if I understand correctly means it has a high percentage of low income students. I wonder if part of the problem here might not be Girls vs. Boys but Wealthy vs. Low Income. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/56 "2011-06-04T06:00:01Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I agree “sexual assault” goes too far. Actually I want to qualify that. I stand by that a charge of sexual assault goes too far but I cannot help but wonder if the genders were reversed if a charge of sexual assault might have been sought for the boys. No one can say for sure but my gut tells me (FWIW) that such a charge would be a distinct possibility against boys doing the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/57 "2011-06-04T06:04:17Z")
> [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > It looks like the elementary school the victim attended was a Title I School, which if I understand correctly means it has a high percentage of low income students. I wonder if part of the problem here might not be Girls vs. Boys but Wealthy vs. Low Income. At that age I doubt that’d be much of a factor. Hard to say…anything is possible but so far I see nothing to suggest this was more than simple bullying that kids are wont to do. ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/58 "2011-06-04T06:08:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > At that age I doubt that’d be much of a factor. > > Hard to say…anything is possible but so far I see nothing to suggest this was more than simple bullying that kids are wont to do. It might seem more intimidating to a poor family to go up against one that can afford a good lawyer. This is something you used to hear about women who were raped too, that poor women going against wealthy families had an especially tough battle ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/59 "2011-06-04T06:17:49Z")
Does the video qualify as child porn? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267/60 "2011-06-04T06:19:00Z")
> [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > It might seem more intimidating to a poor family to go up against one that can afford a good lawyer. This is something you used to hear about women who were raped too, that poor women going against wealthy families had an especially tough battle ahead. Often in rape cases of the sort you are talking about it is a case of he said/she said and are notoriously hard to prove. In those cases the rich family often buries the hapless woman. In this case, even if we assume a large disparity in family incomes (which I have seen no evidence for), it’d be the State bringing charges and pitting their lawyers against the girls’ lawyers. Further, there does not seem to be a he said/she said case here. The girls filmed the event and posted it online. Not sure what cover even a rich girl’s attorney could find from that. I suspect a rich girl’s attorney would seek a plea that amounted to a slap on the wrist but that would assume the State bothered to even bring charges. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-double-standards-boy-bullied-stripped-by-girls-video-posted-no-charges/584267.md?page=4)